Challenges arising from urban warfare

International Law in Revolutionary Upheavals – on the Tension between International Investment Law and International Humanitarian Law -

Military Necessity as Normative Indifference

The development and use of new technologies, especially those based on artificial intelligence (AI), are considered one of the significant characteristics of contemporary armed conflicts. The use of simple prototypes of unarmed drones in the early 1990s has today experienced a true expansion in the form of armed "drone swarms" and "suicide development of autonomous lethal systems ("killer robots") and AI tools for facial and object recognition, which have found their application in the wars in Ukraine (Clearview AI, Skykit Palantir) and Gaza (The Gospel, Lavender). Satellites, both military and commercial, such as SpaceX Starlink and Maxar, as well as AI tools for decrypting and analyzing data, also play a significant role in these conflicts, particularly in Ukraine. An indispensable segment of these conflicts is information warfare, where disinformation, fake news, and numerous AI tools for deepfake, creating fake images, and fake social media accounts are used as primary 'weapons.' Therefore, it is not surprising that some authors consider Ukraine to have turned into a "AI war lab and AI wars of the future", while Gaza can also br e said to represent a testing ground for AI tools for military purposes. Given that the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza are taking place in urban areas, this review paper presents the use of these technologies and their impact on the civilian population and infrastructure, as well as on the transformation of the war itself and the conduct of military operations in urban environments. The paper concludes that as AI continues to evolve, its impact on the transformation of warfare necessitates thorough examination and understanding of this topic.

The article examines the interaction between international investment law and international humanitarian law in the context of armed conflicts. It analyses the concept of lex specialis within both legal regimes and considers different approaches to determining their priority of application, namely international humanitarian law, international investment law, and the contextual approach. Particular attention is paid to the practical application of bilateral investment treaties in situations of military occupation of territory and to issues of state responsibility in such circumstances. The study highlights the challenges of protecting investments in contexts of occupation and frozen conflicts, as well as approaches to determining the legal status of investment assets (civilian or military), especially where the activities of an investment object are directed towards the production of dual-use goods. The article further examines arbitral decisions and scholarly opinions concerning the impact of armed conflicts on the operation of bilateral investment treaties. It emphasizes that an international armed conflict may be interpreted differently under the two regimes: as a regular normative condition in international humanitarian law, and as a circumstance of force majeure in international investment law. The necessity of adopting a flexible, contextual approach is underlined, one that simultaneously takes into account the objectives of both regimes (safeguarding investors’ rights under international investment law and ensuring compliance with states’ humanitarian obligations under international humanitarian law).

The rise of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) poses substantial challenges to international legal frameworks governing armed conflicts, particularly in balancing sovereignty and human rights. This paper examines the influence of military technology on jus ad bellum, focusing on territorial sovereignty under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and self-defence under Article 51. It also evaluates compliance with jus in bello, or international humanitarian law (IHL), including the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. Moreover, it documents the views of thirty Italians on UAVs through online qualitative interviews. The arguments are based on posthumanism, which helps define a new anthropological view that is decentralised and deconstructed. Precisely, the philosophy recognises the increasingly narrow differences between humans and non-humans, men and machines. Thematic Analysis drives the investigation of patterns within the data set, offering a flexible yet rigorous approach to personal insights. Outcomes reveal that UAVs enable many military achievements but endanger society. Participants viewed their use outside war zones as both illegal and morally indefensible, expressing concerns over the dehumanisation inherent in remote targeting. They argued that engaging with suspected terrorists without judicial oversight might violate due process. Hence, they stressed the importance of more nuanced national and international regulatory mechanisms.

ABSTRACTTwo categories of ethical questions surrounding military autonomous systems are discussed in this article. The first category concerns ethical issues regarding the use of military autonomous systems in the air and in the water. These issues are systematized with the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) as a backdrop. The second category concerns whether autonomous systems may affect the ethical interpretation of LOAC. It is argued that some terms in LOAC are vague and can be interpreted differently depending on which ethical normative theory is used, which may increase with autonomous systems. The impact of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) on the laws of war will be discussed and compared to Maritime Autonomous Systems (MAS). The conclusion is that there is need for revisions of LOAC regarding autonomous systems, and that the greatest ethically relevant difference between UAVs and MAS has to do with issues connected to jus ad bellum – particularly lowering the threshold for starting war – but also the sense of unfairness, violation of integrity, and the potential for secret wars.

This article tries to examine John Rawls’ theories of war and nuclear weapons especially from the perspective of international law. Rawls's theory of war is based on the just war theory of Western tradition. It rejects realism and does not adopt pacifism. Rawls's theory of jus ad bellum is similar to the position of current international law in that it recognizes a war of self-defense and exceptionally a war of humanitarian intervention. HIs theory of jus in bello largely reflects the principles of existing International Humanitarian Law(IHL), such as the distinction between combatants and civilians, protection of human rights, and restrictions on military necessity. However, Rawls deviates from international humanitarian law in that it permits military action against civilians in the case of the so-called supreme emergency. Regarding nuclear weapons, it differs from the existing International Court of Justice (ICJ) theory of nuclear permitting by permitting nuclear weapons only to well-ordered peoples and presenting human rights standards for nuclear use. In addition, by evaluating the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombings as great wrongs, it presents a precedent in international humanitarian law for the use of nuclear weapons. The official position of the United States regarding the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombings was that it was a justifiable measure to end the war early. However, Rawls rejects the U.S. government's arguments and says that the atomic bombing was a representative case of the failure of so-called 'statesmanship'. This article attempted to support Rawls's perspective from the perspective of international humanitarian law. The claim that the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombings were intended to reduce the casualties of U.S. soldiers does not comply with the principle of military necessity under international humanitarian law. Additionally, the claim that it was an inevitable choice to reduce the damage to Japanese civilians that would result from a prolonged war is not valid in that there was room for a third option to end the war. The dropping of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombs reflected America's political interest for the victory of unconditional surrender and ending the war before Russia (the former Soviet Union) entered the war. This did not comply with the principles of military necessity or humanitarian necessity of international humanitarian law.

This chapter explores the principles and rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) that govern the conduct of hostilities by states and other participants during an armed conflict. The term ‘conduct of hostilities’ refers to the application of force in the course of such conflicts. In particular, it encompasses the various methods (tactics) and the means (weapons) that are used during the hostilities. Those aspects of IHL that address the conduct of hostilities can best be understood by reference to a normative typology consisting of foundational principles, general principles, and rules. There are two foundational principles underlying the IHL applicable to the conduct of hostilities: military necessity and humanity. Whereas foundational principles broadly inform IHL, general IHL principles are the sources of individual rules. Rules are the instruments by which states, the sole generators of IHL, agree to limit their freedom of action, and that of other participants, during an armed conflict. The chapter then looks at certain new technologies warfare and highlights the key legal issues they raise with respect to the conduct of hostilities.

This chapter brings attention to the quite divergent consequences of dealing with the issue of detention by non-State armed groups in non-international armed conflicts under international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The conventional approach to detention in international humanitarian law is that armed groups only have a de facto power, bound by humanitarian obligations. Under the laws of war, the question is partly tied to whether States themselves have the prerogative to detain under Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol II, a question that is far from settled. Non-State armed groups raise the added problem that they may not be recognized, or be recognized only for the purposes of endorsing humanitarian obligations. If international humanitarian law does not apply to the authority to detain, then the question falls to be resolved by international human rights law. Under the latter, there must be a solid foundation to any deprivation of freedom, and the question cannot simply be one of treating captives humanely. This chapter will suggest that in both cases a theory of non-State actors’ ‘right authority’ is missing when it comes to detaining State troops. Historically, this issue has been obscured by the fact that the right authority has been equated with statehood, but the moment may have come to rediscover how one can identify non-State actors that could be considered privileged in the international legal system.

Although no specific treaties govern the use of air power, a significant body of rules based on general international humanitarian law (IHL) constrains the use of air power in armed conflicts. Scenes of carnage resulting from the application of air power to urban environments underscore the need to balance humanitarian concerns with operational necessity. With the principles of distinction, military necessity, proportionality, and humane behaviour as the point of departure, this chapter focuses on air-to-ground targeting – the aspect of air power that comprises the majority of IHL issues. It addresses four modern areas of debate, drawing on the principles of targeting: strategic targeting of war-sustaining objects, the issue of human shields, the use of remotely piloted aircraft, and autonomously operated aerial systems. Modern counter-insurgency operations have increased the complexity of the traditional battlespace with their greater focus on prevention of collateral damage. With robots increasingly becoming part of the Western arsenal, IHL and the moral code become essential; for Western democracies, law and ethics constitute the first line of defence. The study of IHL should assist all those involved in planning, leading, and executing air operations. The politically desirable and technologically possible must never be allowed to trump IHL.

Military necessity is a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may cause harm, even worse conditions affecting civilians and civilian objects. Thus, the principle of military necessity means that military forces in planning their military operations are allowed to take into account the practical needs of the military situation at a certain moment and the necessity to win the war. This study aims to limit the application of military necessity principles by focusing on the Lieber Code focused as an appropriate limitation called the "greatest theoretical contribution to the modern law of war" so as prevent war victims. This qualitative research used a descriptive approach to collect data systematically, factually, and quickly according to the situation when the research is carried out. The results of this study showed that the Lieber Code does not limit all military necessities but only to some necessary elements for obtaining military objectives. Therefore, military necessity is not an exception to the law of armed conflict but rather explicitly states the restrictions that have been regulated in the law of armed conflict.

Armed drone is a military technology that is being used not only for surveillance but also in combat operations. In some military operations the distinctive technological features of drones offer an advantage compared to manned aircraft. Most of the military operations which are conducted by drones fall under Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II). The use of military drones in non-international armed conflicts causes many legal problems in the international humanitarian law, concerning the protection of civilians. Nevertheless, armed drones are legal under international humanitarian law. The most relevant principles of international humanitarian law concerning the use of armed drones are distinction and proportionality. These principles can be fulfilled more effectively by drone operators because of the advanced technology of drones. However, the use of armed drones in real life operations usually violate the international humanitarian law and its core principles. Thus, existing regulation cannot protect the lives of civilians. Additional regulation of armed drones at the UN level could create international legal mechanism which would protect the civilians. However, the current political situation, as well as the difficult decision-making procedures at the UN institutions, suggest that future legal regulation is not likely to be enacted anytime soon.

The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) reflects a balance between military necessity and humanity. Potentially upsetting this balance is an apparent trend towards relying on self-defence under criminal law as a justification for the use of force by military members during armed conflicts. This chapter argues that this trend is based on a misunderstanding of the scope self-defence when applied in light of the combatant’s privilege. The chapter also cautions against the conflation of the requirements of self-defence and LOAC and analyses how self-defence operates with respect to precautions in attack, a ‘duty to retreat’, prohibited weapons and military orders.This paper was awarded a 'Certificate of Merit' by the Lieber Society in the 2014 Richard R. Baxter Military Prize for exceptional writing in English by an active member of the regular or reserve armed forces.

INTRODUCTION. In the world, due to the growing trends in the militarization of the information space, military actions in this area are becoming a reality and a prospect for a number of operational, tactical and other advantages in comparison with military actions in traditional forms within the classical theaters of war. Information military confrontation will be carried out through the use of a new type of weapon – information, which does not fit into the established paradigm of approaches to traditional weapons, which, of course, gives rise to many questions and contradictory expert opinions, but is in dire need of further development and comprehensive research.MATERIALS AND METHODS. Given the complexity and multi-component nature of the topic under study, the study is based on the results of the analysis of scientific works by Russian and foreign legal scholars on international humanitarian law (IHL), experts in the field of military affairs, and specialists in the field of information technology. The author also examines key international treaties on IHL, on the topic of international information security (IIS), which together form the basis for the international legal qualification of information weapons as a means of waging war in the context of the gradual adaptation of IHL norms to situations of hostile use of information space. In conducting the study, analytical and review materials of the ICRC on the issue of cyber operations during an armed conflict were used. The methodological basis is made up of general scientific and special research methods.RESEARCH RESULTS. The results of the conducted study established two formed concepts reflecting approaches to IIS and threats in this area through the prism of cybertopics and information aspect, within the framework of each of which specific terminology is formed, including approaches to defining methods and means of conducting military operations. It was determined that the domestic doctrine is built around the information agenda of security, which determined the development of the definition of “information weapons” and the study of its status as a promising means of waging war in the information space. It seems significant to identify and generalize doctrinal trends in the qualification of information weapons as weapons of mass destruction or conventional weapons, as well as to establish new approaches to regulating the development and use of information weapons in armed conflicts.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The article presents the author’s objective assessments of the existing doctrinal approaches of both domestic and foreign scientists on the issue of international legal qualification of methods and means of waging war in the information space in general and information weapons as a means of waging war in particular. Separately, international treaties on IHL and IIS are considered in terms of the possibility of applying their provisions to regulate the restriction of the behavior of warring parties in information warfare, taking into account a certain adaptation of IHL norms to the conditions of hostile use of information technologies. Prospects for further development of the IHL doctrine on regulating the development and use of information weapons in armed conflicts are identified.

International humanitarian law is the law that governs the conduct of participants during armed conflict. This branch of law aims to regulate the means and methods of warfare as well as to provide protections to those who do not, or who no longer, take part in the hostilities. It is one of the oldest branches of international law and one of enduring relevance today. This book provides an authoritative and practical overview of this important area of law. The book covers the foundations of international humanitarian law, including its sources, scope of application, and provides an overview of the classification of conflicts and domains of warfare. Chapters then deal with traditional issues that arise in the application of this body of law, such as the basic principles of the conduct of hostilities, the fundamental guarantees provided by this body of law, as well the law relating to weapons, detention, and specifically protected persons. The book also considers the implementation of this body of law, including through criminal prosecution for war crimes. Finally, it addresses the relationship between international humanitarian law and modern challenges relating to protection of the environment, human rights, and terrorism. The book targets professionals, as well as advanced students, with information and analysis of sufficient depth to enable them to perform their tasks with understanding and confidence. It also serves as a first port of call, a one stop shop, and a regular reference work for those interested in international humanitarian law.